Legal Matters	12 Months Ended
Nov. 30, 2016
Loss Contingency, Information about Litigation Matters [Abstract]
Legal Matters	Legal Matters Nevada Development Contract Litigation. KB HOME Nevada Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of ours (“KB Nevada”), is a defendant in a case in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada entitled Las Vegas Development Associates, LLC, Essex Real Estate Partners, LLC, et al. v. KB HOME Nevada Inc. In 2007, Las Vegas Development Associates, LLC (“LVDA”) agreed to purchase from KB Nevada approximately 83 acres of land located near Las Vegas, Nevada. LVDA subsequently assigned its rights to Essex Real Estate Partners, LLC (“Essex”). KB Nevada and Essex entered into a development agreement relating to certain major infrastructure improvements. LVDA’s and Essex’s complaint, initially filed in 2008, alleged that KB Nevada breached the development agreement, and also alleged that KB Nevada fraudulently induced them to enter into the purchase and development agreements. LVDA’s and Essex’s lenders subsequently filed related actions that were consolidated into the LVDA/Essex matter. The consolidated plaintiffs sought rescission of the agreements or, in the alternative, compensatory damages of $55 million plus unspecified punitive damages and other damages, and interest charges in excess of $41 million (“Claimed Damages”). KB Nevada has denied the allegations, and believes it has meritorious defenses to the consolidated plaintiffs’ claims. On March 15, 2013, the district court entered orders denying the consolidated plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and granting the majority of KB Nevada’s motions for summary judgment, eliminating, among other of the consolidated plaintiffs’ claims, those for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and punitive damages. With the district court’s decisions, the only remaining claims against KB Nevada are for contract damages and rescission. In August 2013, the court granted motions that further narrowed the scope of the Claimed Damages. The lender plaintiffs filed an appeal from the district court’s summary judgment decisions with the Nevada Supreme Court and that court heard oral argument on June 6, 2016. On September 22, 2016, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected the lender plaintiffs’ appeal and upheld the district court’s summary judgment decisions against the lender plaintiffs in favor of KB Nevada. The district court scheduled a new trial date of February 28, 2017 for all remaining claims. While the ultimate outcome is uncertain — we believe it is reasonably possible that the loss in this matter could exceed the amount accrued by a range of zero to approximately $55 million plus prejudgment interest, which could be material to our consolidated financial statements — KB Nevada believes it will be successful in defending against the consolidated plaintiffs’ remaining claims and that the consolidated plaintiffs will not be awarded rescission or damages. Wage and Hour Litigation. In May 2011, a group of current and former sales representatives filed a collective action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division entitled Edwards, K. v. KB Home. The lawsuit alleged that we misclassified sales representatives and failed to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 206-07). In September 2012, the Edwards court conditionally certified a nationwide class, and in May 2015, scheduled an initial trial involving a portion of the plaintiffs for December 2015. In September 2013, some of the plaintiffs in the Edwards case filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court entitled Andrea L. Bejenaru, et al. v. KB Home, et al. The lawsuit alleged violations of California laws relating to overtime, meal period and rest break pay, itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties and unfair business practices for a class of sales representatives. Although the case involved a putative class of individuals who were our sales representatives from September 2009 forward, the Bejenaru case was not certified as a class action. In the second quarter of 2015, plaintiff representatives in the Edwards and the Bejenaru cases claimed $66 million in compensatory damages, penalties and interest, as well as injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs for both matters. On November 18, 2015, we reached a tentative mediated settlement with the plaintiff representatives in both cases that remains subject to judicial approval. Under the terms of the tentative settlement, we agreed to pay $7.5 million to a settlement administrator for distribution to individual settling plaintiffs, subject to obtaining releases from, and a specified threshold of participation by, such individuals. On May 2, 2016, after further negotiations to resolve important details related to the claims submission process for individual settling plaintiffs, we reached final settlement terms with the plaintiff representatives. The final settlement terms did not change the settlement amount, which is intended to be inclusive of all payments to settling plaintiffs and all related fees and costs, or the required threshold participation level. On May 19, 2016, the Edwards court approved the final settlement terms with respect to the Edwards case and, with the Bejenaru court’s consent, preliminarily approved the final settlement terms with respect to the Bejenaru case. On September 15, 2016, the court approved the final settlement terms with respect to the Bejenaru case. In 2015, we established an accrual for these cases in the amount of $7.5 million, which we paid as of November 30, 2016. San Diego Water Board Notice of Violation. In August 2015, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region (“RWQCB”) issued to us and another homebuilder a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) alleging violations of the California Water Code and waste discharge prohibitions of the water quality control plan for the San Diego Region (Basin Plan). According to the NOV, the alleged violations involved the unpermitted discharge of fill material into the waters of the United States/California during the grading of a required secondary access road for a community located in San Diego County, California, which was performed pursuant to a County-issued grading permit. In its NOV, the RWQCB requested to meet with us to discuss the alleged violations as part of its process to determine whether to bring any enforcement action, and we have met with the RWQCB in an effort to resolve the matters alleged in the NOV. An administrative hearing before the RWQCB originally scheduled for August 10, 2016 has been continued and a new hearing date has not yet been set. While the ultimate outcome is uncertain, we believe that any penalties and related corrective measures the RWQCB may impose under the NOV could exceed $100,000 (the threshold for the required disclosure of this type of environmental proceeding) but they are not expected to be material to our consolidated financial statements. Other Matters. In addition to the specific proceedings described above, we are involved in other litigation and regulatory proceedings incidental to our business that are in various procedural stages. We believe that the accruals we have recorded for probable and reasonably estimable losses with respect to these proceedings are adequate and that, as of November 30, 2016, it was not reasonably possible that an additional material loss had been incurred in an amount in excess of the estimated amounts already recognized or disclosed in our consolidated financial statements. We evaluate our accruals for litigation and regulatory proceedings at least quarterly and, as appropriate, adjust them to reflect (a) the facts and circumstances known to us at the time, including information regarding negotiations, settlements, rulings and other relevant events and developments; (b) the advice and analyses of counsel; and (c) the assumptions and judgment of management. Similar factors and considerations are used in establishing new accruals for proceedings as to which losses have become probable and reasonably estimable at the time an evaluation is made. Based on our experience, we believe that the amounts that may be claimed or alleged against us in these proceedings are not a meaningful indicator of our potential liability. The outcome of any of these proceedings, including the defense and other litigation-related costs and expenses we may incur, however, is inherently uncertain and could differ significantly from the estimate reflected in a related accrual, if made. Therefore, it is possible that the ultimate outcome of any proceeding, if in excess of a related accrual or if an accrual had not been made, could be material to our consolidated financial statements.

Legal Matters

Nevada Development Contract Litigation. KB HOME Nevada Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of ours (“KB Nevada”), is a defendant in a case in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada entitled Las Vegas Development Associates, LLC, Essex Real Estate Partners, LLC, et al. v. KB HOME Nevada Inc. In 2007, Las Vegas Development Associates, LLC (“LVDA”) agreed to purchase from KB Nevada approximately 83 acres of land located near Las Vegas, Nevada. LVDA subsequently assigned its rights to Essex Real Estate Partners, LLC (“Essex”). KB Nevada and Essex entered into a development agreement relating to certain major infrastructure improvements. LVDA’s and Essex’s complaint, initially filed in 2008, alleged that KB Nevada breached the development agreement, and also alleged that KB Nevada fraudulently induced them to enter into the purchase and development agreements. LVDA’s and Essex’s lenders subsequently filed related actions that were consolidated into the LVDA/Essex matter. The consolidated plaintiffs sought rescission of the agreements or, in the alternative, compensatory damages of $55 million plus unspecified punitive damages and other damages, and interest charges in excess of $41 million (“Claimed Damages”). KB Nevada has denied the allegations, and believes it has meritorious defenses to the consolidated plaintiffs’ claims. On March 15, 2013, the district court entered orders denying the consolidated plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and granting the majority of KB Nevada’s motions for summary judgment, eliminating, among other of the consolidated plaintiffs’ claims, those for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and punitive damages. With the district court’s decisions, the only remaining claims against KB Nevada are for contract damages and rescission. In August 2013, the court granted motions that further narrowed the scope of the Claimed Damages. The lender plaintiffs filed an appeal from the district court’s summary judgment decisions with the Nevada Supreme Court and that court heard oral argument on June 6, 2016. On September 22, 2016, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected the lender plaintiffs’ appeal and upheld the district court’s summary judgment decisions against the lender plaintiffs in favor of KB Nevada. The district court scheduled a new trial date of February 28, 2017 for all remaining claims. While the ultimate outcome is uncertain — we believe it is reasonably possible that the loss in this matter could exceed the amount accrued by a range of zero to approximately $55 million plus prejudgment interest, which could be material to our consolidated financial statements — KB Nevada believes it will be successful in defending against the consolidated plaintiffs’ remaining claims and that the consolidated plaintiffs will not be awarded rescission or damages.

Wage and Hour Litigation. In May 2011, a group of current and former sales representatives filed a collective action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division entitled Edwards, K. v. KB Home. The lawsuit alleged that we misclassified sales representatives and failed to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 206-07). In September 2012, the Edwards court conditionally certified a nationwide class, and in May 2015, scheduled an initial trial involving a portion of the plaintiffs for December 2015. In September 2013, some of the plaintiffs in the Edwards case filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court entitled Andrea L. Bejenaru, et al. v. KB Home, et al. The lawsuit alleged violations of California laws relating to overtime, meal period and rest break pay, itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties and unfair business practices for a class of sales representatives. Although the case involved a putative class of individuals who were our sales representatives from September 2009 forward, the Bejenaru case was not certified as a class action. In the second quarter of 2015, plaintiff representatives in the Edwards and the Bejenaru cases claimed $66 million in compensatory damages, penalties and interest, as well as injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs for both matters. On November 18, 2015, we reached a tentative mediated settlement with the plaintiff representatives in both cases that remains subject to judicial approval. Under the terms of the tentative settlement, we agreed to pay $7.5 million to a settlement administrator for distribution to individual settling plaintiffs, subject to obtaining releases from, and a specified threshold of participation by, such individuals. On May 2, 2016, after further negotiations to resolve important details related to the claims submission process for individual settling plaintiffs, we reached final settlement terms with the plaintiff representatives. The final settlement terms did not change the settlement amount, which is intended to be inclusive of all payments to settling plaintiffs and all related fees and costs, or the required threshold participation level. On May 19, 2016, the Edwards court approved the final settlement terms with respect to the Edwards case and, with the Bejenaru court’s consent, preliminarily approved the final settlement terms with respect to the Bejenaru case. On September 15, 2016, the court approved the final settlement terms with respect to the Bejenaru case. In 2015, we established an accrual for these cases in the amount of $7.5 million, which we paid as of November 30, 2016.

San Diego Water Board Notice of Violation. In August 2015, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region (“RWQCB”) issued to us and another homebuilder a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) alleging violations of the California Water Code and waste discharge prohibitions of the water quality control plan for the San Diego Region (Basin Plan). According to the NOV, the alleged violations involved the unpermitted discharge of fill material into the waters of the United States/California during the grading of a required secondary access road for a community located in San Diego County, California, which was performed pursuant to a County-issued grading permit. In its NOV, the RWQCB requested to meet with us to discuss the alleged violations as part of its process to determine whether to bring any enforcement action, and we have met with the RWQCB in an effort to resolve the matters alleged in the NOV. An administrative hearing before the RWQCB originally scheduled for August 10, 2016 has been continued and a new hearing date has not yet been set. While the ultimate outcome is uncertain, we believe that any penalties and related corrective measures the RWQCB may impose under the NOV could exceed $100,000 (the threshold for the required disclosure of this type of environmental proceeding) but they are not expected to be material to our consolidated financial statements.

Other Matters. In addition to the specific proceedings described above, we are involved in other litigation and regulatory proceedings incidental to our business that are in various procedural stages. We believe that the accruals we have recorded for probable and reasonably estimable losses with respect to these proceedings are adequate and that, as of November 30, 2016, it was not reasonably possible that an additional material loss had been incurred in an amount in excess of the estimated amounts already recognized or disclosed in our consolidated financial statements. We evaluate our accruals for litigation and regulatory proceedings at least quarterly and, as appropriate, adjust them to reflect (a) the facts and circumstances known to us at the time, including information regarding negotiations, settlements, rulings and other relevant events and developments; (b) the advice and analyses of counsel; and (c) the assumptions and judgment of management. Similar factors and considerations are used in establishing new accruals for proceedings as to which losses have become probable and reasonably estimable at the time an evaluation is made. Based on our experience, we believe that the amounts that may be claimed or alleged against us in these proceedings are not a meaningful indicator of our potential liability. The outcome of any of these proceedings, including the defense and other litigation-related costs and expenses we may incur, however, is inherently uncertain and could differ significantly from the estimate reflected in a related accrual, if made. Therefore, it is possible that the ultimate outcome of any proceeding, if in excess of a related accrual or if an accrual had not been made, could be material to our consolidated financial statements.